RobWLakes wrote > I chose to disregard the answer. > > Is OpenSCAD the best language to extend OpenSCAD? How much do we multiply > failings? I don't have confidence in that idea given OpenSCAD's intrinsic > structural, functionsl and variable access limitations. Yes, some exotic > things can be done(most impressive libraries), but are they elegant , and > an extension most users can appreciate and further build on? Just to clarify what you are talking about... Are you talking about the language OpenSCAD is written in, or the language used for generating objects? > I think the argument for OpenSCAD in a Python environment addresses the > fundimental dilemma of not just improving the functions that the OpenSCAD > paradigm defines, but the language structures that support it. > Clinging to the OpenSCAD language to support itself(no limitation to the > truly inspired) is fine for some, but a huge wall to scale for so many > other potential contributors. Personally, I don't care much about what language OpenSCAD is written in. I just care that it runs on my machines. The only thing I have against Python being the language it is written in, is if it would require me to use Python to write libraries, because, frankly, I really don't like Python, and only have it on my machine to do a few things that absolutely require it. If you are speaking of the OpenSCAD language itself, I would suggest to you that if you really want that, to either rewrite it yourself or recruit a team to do it, leaving the current OpenSCAD as-is, for those of us who will not use Python syntax unless we are forced into it. -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

I share the distaste with the python syntax, and anything that uses whitespace for block structuring, like yaml etc. When working with kubernetes the biggest pain in the ass is getting the block nesting in yaml files wrong. On Fri, Dec 25, 2020, 01:06 lar3ry <lar3ry@sasktel.net> wrote: > RobWLakes wrote > > I chose to disregard the answer. > > > > Is OpenSCAD the best language to extend OpenSCAD? How much do we multiply > > failings? I don't have confidence in that idea given OpenSCAD's > intrinsic > > structural, functionsl and variable access limitations. Yes, some exotic > > things can be done(most impressive libraries), but are they elegant , and > > an extension most users can appreciate and further build on? > > Just to clarify what you are talking about... > Are you talking about the language OpenSCAD is written in, or the language > used for generating objects? > > > > I think the argument for OpenSCAD in a Python environment addresses the > > fundimental dilemma of not just improving the functions that the OpenSCAD > > paradigm defines, but the language structures that support it. > > Clinging to the OpenSCAD language to support itself(no limitation to the > > truly inspired) is fine for some, but a huge wall to scale for so many > > other potential contributors. > > Personally, I don't care much about what language OpenSCAD is written in. I > just care that it runs on my machines. The only thing I have against Python > being the language it is written in, is if it would require me to use > Python > to write libraries, because, frankly, I really don't like Python, and only > have it on my machine to do a few things that absolutely require it. > > If you are speaking of the OpenSCAD language itself, I would suggest to you > that if you really want that, to either rewrite it yourself or recruit a > team to do it, leaving the current OpenSCAD as-is, for those of us who will > not use Python syntax unless we are forced into it. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >